Waiting game for Footprint Power as opponents have high hopes for EPA appeal

Thursday

Jun 19, 2014 at 12:01 AMJun 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM

By Kris Olsonkolson@wickedlocal.com

The word could come any day now, said Scott Silverstein, president and COO of Footprint Power, which is proposing to build a new quick-start gas-fired power plant on the Salem site of a now-defunct coal-burning plant.All eyes of both plant officials and local environmental activists opposed to the new plant are currently on the federal Environmental Appeals Board, awaiting its ruling on an appeal filed by four people — three Salem residents and one former resident now living in Marblehead — challenging the state Department of Environmental Protection’s issuance of the plant’s air pollution permit complied with the Clean Air Act.The resolution of that appeal is one of two major hurdles standing in the way of the plant obtaining financing for construction that could cost upwards of $1 billion, Silverstein explained.The appellants are arguing that the state’s original “BACT” pollution analysis was substantially revised after the comment period closed, and even in its original form, was not available online and was never published, according to a press release from a number of grassroots groups, including Swampscott-based HealthLink.That claim is simply untrue, said Silverstein, pointing to the transcript of a status conference in front of Environmental Appeals Judge Kathie A. Stein, held in Washington, D.C., on April 1. In that conference, Madelyn Morris, attorney for the Mass DEP, represented that the agency had, in fact, provided the opponents with copies of the pollution analysis and received comments in response, which it then drew upon to modify the draft permit.To suggest otherwise, said Silverstein, is “more than a bit disingenuous.”As a result, Silverstein is confident that Footprint will prevail on the appeal. Nonetheless, because the issuance of the Mass DEP’s permit has been automatically stayed until the appeal is resolved, its investors are remaining on the sidelines until the uncertainty dissipates.The other front on which there is lingering uncertainty, Silverstein acknowledged, is the degree to which Footprint will be penalized by grid operator ISO-New England for not having the plant up and running by June 2016, as required by the contract it entered by participating in the applicable forward capacity auction.June 2016 is less than 24 months away; the construction of the power plant is estimated to take about 30 months.“I don’t think it’s a great [revelation] that there simply isn’t enough time,” Silverstein said.ISO-New England is in the process of trying to reform its rules, he said, to acknowledge that Footprint will not meet its deadline through no fault of its own.“There certainly can’t be a suggestion that we have left a stone unturned and not tried to expedite [the process] as quickly as possible,” Silverstein said.The regulatory timeline, he added, does not “mesh up well with the market rules” of when the plant is expected to go online.One other detail that will have to be finalized before Footprint moves forward is the signing of an agreement related to a payment in lieu of taxes that the plant will make to the city of Salem. There is no signed PILOT agreement, Silverstein said, nor has such an agreement been presented to the Salem City Council. But Silverstein indicated that he did not anticipate the PILOT agreement becoming an issue, believing that the plant and city officials have had an understanding since the process began in April 2010. “We needed to make sure the new plant will shoulder the tax burden of the [former coal] plant, with the remaining acreage providing increased revenue for the city,” Silverstein said.The new gas plant will occupy only 20 acres of the former coal plant’s 60-acre site, with the remaining 40 acres redeveloped. Footprint has begun soliciting ideas for that redevelopment.As with other aspects of the project, Silverstein said that the approval of the PILOT agreement will follow a process, including a public education campaign and open meetings.Meanwhile, the appeal of Footprint’s DEP permit is currently the only one of its kind in front of the Environmental Appeals Board. It is a type that is expedited, given the hardship of having a permit stayed while the appeal is pending, Silverstein noted. As a result, a decision could come any day.In a recent press release, local environmentalists indicated they have high hopes for the Appeals Board decision, despite Silverstein’s confidence about Footprint prevailing.“Clearly, this plant is not a done deal,” said Jeff Brooks of GASPP and a plaintiff in the air-permit appeal. “It’s hard to swallow that we ratepayers have to help pay for a $900-plus-million fossil fuel plant on Salem harbor that is no longer needed for electricity and endangers health and safety. That’s corporate welfare. The local community and our planet deserve better than this, and I hope the EPA helps get us to a future of which we can all be proud.” Added HealthLink member Jane Bright of Marblehead, “We were heartened to see the EPA judge's concern about the way the state issued the permit for the new plant without giving all members of the public an opportunity to review the data and analysis used to justify the permit.”While the Swampscott-based nonprofit HeathLink is not party to the current appeal, it has been following it closely, the organization said.To some, the permitting of the Footprint plant has been moving too fast, with insufficient opportunity for public input. “There has been a pattern, from accelerated DEP reviews to discouraging input at local hearings, limiting public participation in the permit process,” said HealthLink Executive Director Martha Dansdill of Swampscott. “Given that Massachusetts is already dependent on gas for 66 percent of its electricity, any new gas plants proposed here should be afforded a careful and thorough review.”Silverstein bristled at the suggestion that the review of the project has been anything but “careful and thorough,” noting that the project has had 12 public hearings in front of the Electrical Facility Siting Board alone over the past two years. In addition, there have been a number of hearings in front of the Department of Environmental Protection and dozens of meetings before Salem municipal bodies. “We stayed and gave answers as long as each board kept the hearings open,” Silverstein said, noting that in one instance, when custodians said they had to lock up the Bentley School, company officials fielded peoples’ questions in the parking lot. Silverstein points to the fact that there are only four people still pursuing appeals out of the thousands of residents potentially affected by the project as proof of the success of the process. People are mostly satisfied with the answers they received during meetings, Silverstein said. The project “cleared every hurdle,” Silverstein said, noting that all of the boards that have approved various permits for the project have done so unanimously. “I think that’s a testament to the work we had done before in preparing the project to meet the needs of the community,” he said. Silverstein said it was “incredibly disappointing” to hear that Craig Altemose, executive director of the Better Future Project, had suggested that the Footprint plant had been “fast-tracked,” pointing to the 12 years’ worth of permitting processes Cape Wind had to endure before beginning construction. “I don’t think anyone… would hold up that saga as a poster child” of how a permitting process should be conducted. He added, “The fact that [the parties involved] could not get to finality… should be troubling no matter what side of the issue you are on.” One thing on which it seems Footprint and some environmental groups will never agree is whether the plant will be a helpful asset in meeting Massachusetts’ aggressive environmental goals. “Knowing what we know about climate change, we should only be building renewable energy projects like Cape Wind, not more fossil-fuel plants and pipelines,” Altemose argued. Silverstein insists the company is looking forward to a day when renewable resources are fulfilling a majority of the region’s energy needs. The whole point of a quick-start plant ideally is that it could lie dormant until a lack of wind or clouds or nightfall blotting out solar power created a need.Unlike the old coal plant, which needed to be in constant operation, the Footprint plant would be able to come online in 10 minutes, the recede into the background when the renewable sources became ample once more.“If you want renewables in the system, you need a plant like this one,” Silverstein said.